Pragmatism and Routine Dynamics

The ideas of classical pragmatists receive increasing attention by scholars working in diverse fields, who realize their fertility in addressing contemporary theoretical and practical challenges. Pragmatism, as a philosophical perspective, embraces a processual view of the world according to which what really exists is ‘in the making,’ in a process of becoming, and places great attention to action and its meaningful experience. In this chapter, I introduce the common themes in the work of the founding figures of classical pragmatism and examine their convergence with the theoretical assumptions underpinning routine dynamics theorizing. I trace the influence of pragmatism in routine dynamics research and suggest that pragmatist thinking has much to offer to the study of routines as dynamic, processual phenomena.

Keywords

Routines routine dynamics pragmatism agency experience uncertainty temporality process thinking

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Cambridge Handbook of Routine Dynamics , pp. 62 - 72
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108993340.007 [Opens in a new window]
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bernstein, R. J. (1992). The resurgence of pragmatism. Social Research, 59(4), 813–840.Google Scholar

Bernstein, R. J. (2010). The Pragmatic Turn. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Cohen, M. D. (2007a). Reading Dewey: Reflections on the study of routine. Organisation Studies, 28(5), 773–786.Google Scholar

Cohen, M. D. (2007b). Administrative behavior: Laying the foundations for Cyert and March. Organization Science, 18(3), 503–506.Google Scholar

Cyert, R. M. and March, J. G. (1963/1992). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar

D’Adderio, L. (2011). Artifacts at the centre of routines: Performing the material turn in routines theory. Journal of Institutional Economics, 7(2), 197–230.Google Scholar

Dewey, J. (1917). The Need for a Recovery of Philosophy. In Dewey, J., ed., Creative Intelligence: Essays in the Pragmatic Attitude. New York: Holt, pp. 3–69.Google Scholar

Dewey, J. (1922). Human Nature and Conduct: An Introduction to Social Psychology. New York: Random House/The Modern Library.Google Scholar

Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The Theory of Inquiry. New York: Henry Holt and Company.Google Scholar

Dewey, J. (1981). The Philosophy of John Dewey. (McDermott, J. J., ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Dewey, J. and Bentley, A. (1949). Knowing and the Known. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar

Dionysiou, D. D. (2017). Symbolic interactionism. In Langley, A. and Tsoukas, H., eds., The Sage Handbook of Process Organization Studies. London: Sage Publications, pp. 144–159.Google Scholar

Dionysiou, D. D. and Sutcliffe, K. M. (2019). Acting in a Dynamic World: Pragmatism and Routine Dynamics. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, 8–12 August 2019, Boston.Google Scholar

Dionysiou, D. D. and Tsoukas, H. (2013). Understanding the (re)creation of routines from within: a symbolic interactionist perspective. Academy of Management Review, 38(2), 189–205.Google Scholar

Dittrich, K. and Seidl, D. (2018). Emerging intentionality in routine dynamics: A pragmatist view. Academy of Management Journal, 61(1), 111–138.Google Scholar

Emirbayer, M. and Maynard, D. W. (2011). Pragmatism and ethnomethodology. Qualitative Sociology, 34, 221–261.Google Scholar

Emirbayer, M. and Miche, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962–1023.Google Scholar

Farjoun, M., Ansell, C. and Boin, A. (2015). Pragmatism in organization studies: Meeting the challenges of a dynamic and complex world. Organization Science, 26(6), 1787–1804.Google Scholar

Feldman, M. S. (2000). Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Organization Science, 11(6), 611–629.Google Scholar

Feldman, M. S. (2016). Routines as process: Past, present and future. In Rerup, C., Howard-Grenville, J., Langley, A. and Tsoukas, H., eds., Organizational Routines: How they are Created, Maintained, and Changed. Perspectives on Process Organization Studies Series. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 23–46.CrossRef Google Scholar

Feldman, M. S. and Orlikowski, W. J. (2011). Theorizing practice and practicing theory. Organization Science, 22(5), 1240–1253.Google Scholar

Feldman, M. S. and Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 94–118.Google Scholar

Feldman, M. S., Pentland, B., D’Adderio, L. and Lazaric, N. (2016). Beyond routines as things: Introduction to the special issue on routine dynamics. Organization Science, 27(3), 505–513.Google Scholar

Feldman, M. S. and Worline, M. (2016). The practicality of practice theory Academy of Management Learning and Education, 15(2), 304–324.Google Scholar

Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

George, J. M. and Jones, G. R. (2000). The role of time in theory and theory building. Journal of Management, 26(4), 657–684.CrossRef Google Scholar

Grodal, S., Nelson, A. J. and Siimo, R. M. (2015). Help-seeking and help-giving as an organizational routine: Continual engagement in innovative work. Academy of Management Journal, 58(1), 136–168.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hernes, T. (2014). A Process Theory of Organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hernes, T., Simpson, B. and Soderland, J. (2013). Managing and temporality. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 29, 1–6.Google Scholar

Howard-Grenville, J. A. (2005). The persistence of flexible organizational routines: The role of agency and organizational context. Organization Science, 16(6), 618–636.Google Scholar

Howard-Grenville, J. and Rerup, C. (2017). A process perspective on organizational routines. In Langley, A. and Tsoukas, H., eds., The Sage Handbook of Process Organization Studies. London: SAGE Publications, pp. 323–339.Google Scholar

James, W. (1878). Remarks on Spencer’s definition of mind as correspondence. The Journal of Speculative Psychology, 12(1), 1–18.Google Scholar

James, W. (1907). Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking. New York: Longman, Green and Co.CrossRef Google Scholar

James, W. (1908). The pragmatist theory of truth and its misunderstanders. The Philosophical Review, 17(1), 1–17.Google Scholar

James, W. (1909). A Pluralistic Universe. New York, Longman, Green and Co.Google Scholar

James, W. (1911). Some Problems of Philosophy. New York, Longman, Green and Co.Google Scholar

Joas, H. (1993). Pragmatism and Social Theory. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Joas, H. (1996). The Creativity of Action. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Joas, H. and Knobl, W. (2009). Social Theory: Twenty Introduction Lectures. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Langley, A. H. and Tsoukas, H. (2017). Introduction: Process thinking, process theorizing and process researching. In Langley, A. and Tsoukas, H., eds., The Sage Handbook of Process Organization Studies. London: Sage Publications, pp. 1–25.Google Scholar

Locke, K. (2001). Grounded Theory in Management Research. London: Sage Publications Ltd.Google Scholar

Locke, K., Golden-Biddle, K. and Feldman, M. S. (2008). Making doubt generative: Rethinking the role of doubt in the research process. Organization Science, 19(6), 907–918.Google Scholar

Loewenstein, G. and Lerner, J. S. (2003). The role of affect in decision making. In Davidson, R. J., Scherer, K. R. and Goldsmith, H. H., eds., Handbook of Affective Sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 619–642.Google Scholar

Lorino, P. (2018). Pragmatism and Organization Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

March, J. H. and Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar

Mead, G. H. (1932). The Philosophy of the Present. London: The Open Court Company.Google Scholar

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, Self, and Society from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist. London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Mead, G. H. (1935). The philosophy of John Dewey. International Journal of Ethics, 46(1), 64–81.Google Scholar

Mead, G. H. (1938). The Philosophy of the Act. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Menand, L. (2002). The Metaphysical Club. London: Flamingo.Google Scholar

Misak, C. (2013). The American Pragmatists. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Nicolini, D. (2009). Zooming in and zooming out: A package of method and theory to study work practices. In Ybema, S., Yanow, D., Wels, H. and Kamsteeg, F., eds., Organizational Ethnography: Studying the Complexities of Everyday Life. London: SAGE Publications, pp. 120–138.CrossRef Google Scholar

Peirce, C. S. (1992). The Essential Peirce, Vol 1 (1867–1893). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

Peirce, C. S. (1998). The Essential Peirce, Vol 2 (1893–1913). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

Pentland, B. T. and Feldman, M. S. (2005). Organizational routines as unit of analysis. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(5), 793–815.CrossRef Google Scholar

Reck, A. J. (1963). The philosophy of George Herbert Mead. In Studies in Recent Philosophy. Tulane Studies in Philosophy Series, Volume 12. Netherlands: Springer, pp. 5–51.Google Scholar

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. and Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.Google Scholar

Sandberg, J. and Tsoukas, H. (2011). Grasping the logic of practice: Theorizing through practical rationality. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 338–360.Google Scholar

Schatzki, T. R. (2001). Introduction: Practice theory. In Schatzki, T. R., Knorr-Cetina, K. and Savigny, E. V., eds., The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 10–23.Google Scholar

Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in Administration: A Sociological Interpretation. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Shotter, J. (2006). Understanding process from within: An argument for ‘withness’-thinking. Organization Studies , 27 (4), 585–604.Google Scholar

Shotter, J. (2010). Situated dialogic action research: Disclosing ‘beginnings’ for innovative change in organizations. Organizational Research Methods, 13(2), 268–285.Google Scholar

Simpson, B. and Lorino, P. (2016). Re-viewing routines through a pragmatist lens. In Rerup, C., Howard-Grenville, J., Langley, A. and Tsoukas, H., eds., Organizational Routines: How they are Created, Maintained, and Changed. Perspectives on Process Organization Studies Series. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 47–70.Google Scholar

Stryker, S. (1980). Symbolic Interactionism. New Jersey: The Blackburn Press.Google Scholar

Thayer, H. S. (1982). Pragmatism: The Classic Writings. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.Google Scholar

Turner, S. F. and Fern, M. J. (2012). Examining the stability and variability of routine performances: The effects of experience and context change. Journal of Management Studies, 49(8), 1407–1434.Google Scholar

Turner, S. F. and Rindova, V. (2012). A balancing act: How organizations pursue consistency in routine functioning in the face of ongoing change. Organization Science, 23(1), 24–46.Google Scholar

Turner, S. F. and Rindova, V. (2018). Watching the clock: Action timing, patterning, and routine performance. Academy of Management Journal, 61(4), 1253–1280.Google Scholar

Wegener, F. and Lorino, F. (2020). Capturing the experience of living forward from within the flow: Fusing ‘withness’ approach & pragmatist inquiry. In Reinecke, J., Suddaby, R., Langley, A. and Tsoukas, H., eds., Perspectives on Process Organization Studies Vol. 7: About Time: Temporality and History in Organization Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 138–168.Google Scholar

Weick, K. E. (1979). The Social Psychology of Organizing, 2nd ed. Reading, MA: Addison-Westley.Google Scholar

Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Weick, K. E. (2003). Theory and practice in the real world. In Tsoukas, H. and Knudsen, C., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Organization Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 453–475.Google Scholar

Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M. and Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421.Google Scholar

Winter, S. G. (2013). Habit, deliberation, and action: Strengthening the microfoundations of routines and capabilities. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(2), 120–137.CrossRef Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.

Book contents

Chapter 5 - Pragmatism and Routine Dynamics

Summary